Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Out-of-Possession Landlord

In the case of Bresnahan v. Indian Creek Health Care, Inc., No. 10535 of 2024, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. July 31, 2026 Cox, P.J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability case.

The Plaintiff filed suit alleging injuries as a result of a slip and fall on an alleged accumulation of liquid in a stairwell. Various Defendants affiliated with the property were sued.

Relative to the out-of-possession landlord, the court held that such a defendant could not be held liable without evidence that it retained control over the allegedly defective area.

With respect to one of that defendants, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that that defendant was involved in the control, maintenance, or repair of the premises. There was also no evidence established that that particular defendant had retained any control over the area where the Plaintiff allegedly fell.

A separate Motion for Summary Judgment filed by another defendant that was identified as the management company for the premises was denied.  The court found that sufficient evidence had been produced to support an inference that that defendant had control over the area of the premises in question.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 17, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Laura Cleffman on www.unsplash.com.

Looking to try to settle a trip or slip and fall case 

before the end of the year?

(570) 319-5899

dancummins@cumminslaw.net

Court Finds That Determination of Whether Plaintiff Was an Invitee, Licensee, or Trespasser is for the Jury

In the case Martin v. Cable Services Co., Inc., No. CV-2025-00988 (C.P. Lyc. Co. April 23, 2026 Carlucci, J.), the court denied Preliminary Objections filed by various Defendants in a premises liability case involving the death of the Plaintiff. One of the Defendants involved was charged with criminal homicide.

According to the Opinion, an incident took place at the business premises of Cable Services Co., Inc. which resulted in the death of the Plaintiff’s decedent. As a result of that incident and death, one of the Defendants was charged with criminal homicide. No more details regarding the facts of the incident were provided in the Opinion.

This Opinion addressed various Preliminary Objections filed by certain Defendants against the Complaint. The Defendants essentially asserted that the Plaintiff’s reference to a corporate safety manual in the Complaint was insufficient to establish any duty owed to the decedent because the decedent was not an employee of Cable Services on the date of the incident.

The Defendants additionally asserted that the allegations in the Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to establish that the decedent was a public invitee to whom the Defendants owed a duty of care.

Judge William P. Carlucci
Lycoming County

Judge William P. Carlucci noted that he was declining to determine whether or not the Defendants owed a duty of care to the decedent at this Preliminary Objections stage. The court noted that, generally speaking, in premises liability cases, the determination of whether an individual is an invitee, licensee, or trespasser is a question of fact for the jury.

The court also noted that the issues of foreseeability with respect to the harm suffered by the decedent is also ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.

As such, the various Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendant were overruled.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 28, 2026).

Judge Allows Trip And Fall Case To Proceed Beyond Summary Judgment

In the case of Bonnell v. Knight-Confer Funeral Home, Inc., No. CV0-2023-01345 (C.P. Lyc. Co. March 23, 2026 Carlucci, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trip and fall case based upon the expert opinion of the Plaintiff’s expert engineer creating questions of fact to be decided decision by the jury.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a step on the Defendant’s premises. During her deposition, the Plaintiff did not assert that there was any debris on the step where she fell,  Nor did the Plaintiff point to any defect in the step itself.

Rather, the Plaintiff testified that she opened the door and thought she was stepping onto the sidewalk and, as a result, missed the step and fell.

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the complete absence of any debris or any defects with regards to the step confirm that there was no material evidence upon which a jury could base any finding of negligence. The Defendant additionally pointed out that the Plaintiff had traveled over the same step on her way into the building without incident.

The Plaintiff’s opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was based, in part, on the fact that the Plaintiff produced an expert engineering report. That expert offered an opinion that the single step condition at the threshold of the doorway created a hazardous condition which endangered the public. The expert further concluded that the actions and/or inactions of the Plaintiff did not cause the incident to occur. The expert otherwise noted that the step was below the normal line of sight and the Plaintiff was therefore unable to perceive it as she exited the doorway.

After reviewing the record before him as applied to Pennsylvania law, the judge noted that, if the jury believed the testimony of the Plaintiff’s engineering expert, a jury could reasonably find that the condition at the threshold of the doorway was a hazardous condition which endangered the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff’s own conduct was not a legal cause of her injuries. 

Accordingly, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and allowed the case to proceed forward.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 28, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Becca Lavin on www.unsplash.com.

Summary Judgment Granted in Supermarket Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Jordan v. Brown’s Superstores, Inc., Aug. Term 2023, No. 02262 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 5, 2025 Yu, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in a slip and fall case involving a Plaintiff who allegedly slipped and fell on pieces of watermelon on a supermarket floor.

The trial court noted that the Plaintiff did not present any evidence that the Defendant had created the hazard. The Plaintiff also did not produce any evidence that the store had any actual knowledge of the pieces of watermelon being on the floor prior to the Plaintiff’s fall.

Moreover, no evidence was produced that would enable the Plaintiff to prove constructive notice on the part of the store. More specifically, there is no evidence presented as to how the pieces of watermelon came to be on the floor, or how long they had been present.

In addition to entering summary judgment for these reasons, the court also noted that the Plaintiff did not file any response to the Motion.

The court noted that the Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment provided an independent procedural basis to support the granting of the summary judgment motion under Pa. R.C.P. 1035.3(d).

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of image: Photo by Shamblen Studios on www.unsplash.com.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Feb. 12, 2026).

LOOKING TO MEDIATE A SLIP OR TRIP AND FALL CASE?

Contact:

dancummins@cumminslaw.net

570-591-3969

Court Rules that Placement of Wet Floor Signs Constitute Adequate Warning

In the case of Pitts v. Sonesta Intern. Hotel, Corp., No. 231002600 (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 24, 2025 Moore, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of a hotel in a case where a Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor in the hotel’s foyer area.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff slipped and fell in an area where a maintenance worker for the hotel had recently mopped the floor but had also put out yellow caution signs. Videos surveillance footage confirmed that the maintenance worker had put the signs out.

According to the Opinion, during her testimony, the Plaintiff acknowledged the presence of the signs inside the foyer. However, the Plaintiff claimed that she did not see the signs before she slipped and fell.

At trial, the court granted the defense Motion for a Non Suit on the basis that there was no genuine issue of material fact to be resolved by the jury once the Plaintiff rested and given that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a right to relief.

The court emphasized that, in Pennsylvania, a business owner had a duty to maintain a reasonably safe property and must either fix dangerous conditions or warn invitees about them.

The court additionally noted that invitees are expected to be aware of their surroundings in order to appreciate possible dangers and also to appreciate warnings of any hazards.

Here in this case, the court found that, by clearly placing the yellow “Wet Floor” signs on the floor in the hotel foyer, the Defendant had adequately warned the Plaintiff about the possibility of the foyer floor being slippery.

The court emphasized that the Plaintiff acknowledged the presence of the wet floor signs inside the foyer before she walked into the area. On cross-examination at trial, the Plaintiff agreed that she had seen at least one (1) of the yellow signs before she entered the foyer and prior to falling down. The trial court noted that, even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, it was the trial court’s opinion that the Plaintiff had failed to meet her burden of proving that the Defendant was liable for her fall.

Notably, the court noted in its Opinion that the placement of yellow warning signs in and around the foyer was conduct that established that the Defendant had adequately warned the Plaintiff of the dangers of the wet floor.

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s suggestion that the hotel should have also have had someone standing near the foyer to tell customers inside the hotel that the floor was wet. The court found that this was not a reasonable requirement and that the law does not require a business owner to undertake such unreasonable measures to warn of hazards on the property.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (March 5, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Sandiyu Nuryono on www.pexels.com.

Watch Out For That Hole That is Open and Obvious

In the case of Harris v. Hutchinson Sportsman’s Club, No. 1007 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Feb. 4, 2026 Stabile, J., Murray, J., and Beck, J.) (Op. by Murray, J.), the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment under the open and obvious doctrine in a case involving a Plaintiff who crashed his bike on a road owned by the Defendant.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff testified that he noticed a “giant hole” in the road and attempted to avoid it as he was operating his son’s electric bike.

The Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Plaintiff was aware of the road conditions and that they were open and obvious.

The Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a case of negligence. The appellate court noted that the trial court had properly found that the conditions on the road were open and obvious, and that the Plaintiff was aware of the conditions, thereby negating any duty on the part of the landowner to warn or protect the Plaintiff.

The Superior Court also agreed with the trial court that the Plaintiff’s inability to pinpoint the cause of his bike accident with his testimony further undermined the Plaintiff’s negligence claim.

As such, the Superior Court upheld the entry of summary judgment, finding that the Plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof on his negligence claim.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert (Feb. 24, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by KBO Bike on www.unsplash.com.

Motion For Summary Judgment Denied in Zipline Accident Case

In the case of Witkowski v. Hellerick’s Family Farm, Inc., No. 230900999 (C.P. Phila. Co. Sept. 18, 2025), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm its decision denying a Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, this matter arises out of a fatal accident that occurred when the Plaintiff died after experiencing difficulties on a zipline course at the Defendant’s farm.

Prior to the incident, the Plaintiff has signed liability waivers acknowledging the risks involved in the activity.

After the accident, the Plaintiff filed a negligence suit in which recklessness was alleged as well.

The Defendant farm moved for summary judgment arguing that the signed waivers and the Agritourism Activity Protection Act shielded the Defendants from liability.

According to the Opinion, the Agritourism Activity Protection Act limits liability for agritourism providers unless gross negligence or recklessness is proven.

The court found that issues of fact with regards to whether the Defendant’s conduct constituted gross negligence or recklessness, which would negate the protections of the waivers and the act existed in the case presented. As such, the court noted that the issues should be permitted to proceed to a jury.

The trial court otherwise noted that the appeal should be dismissed on procedural grounds as its order did not meet the criteria for an appealable Order under Pennsylvania law given that the Order at issue was not a final Order.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 8, 2026).

Summary Judgment Denied in Federal Court Snow and Ice Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Spa Resort, L.P., No. 3:24-CV-0796 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2026 Saporito, J.), the court denied the Defendant resort’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case.

The Defendant landowner argued that the hills and ridges doctrine applied because the Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell due to icy conditions that resulted from snowfall on the day of the incident.

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argued that the Plaintiff did not slip and fall due to icy conditions caused by the snowstorm, but rather, because the Defendants’ driveway was improperly maintained and repaired such that the hills and ridges doctrine did not apply.

The court ultimately concluded that questions of fact remained as to whether the hills and ridges doctrine applied to shield the property owner from liability regarding the allegedly slippery conditions on the premises.

Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
M.D. Pa.

In his decision, Judge Saporito provided a detailed review of the current status of the law in Pennsylvania regarding the hills and ridges doctrine.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: Article – “Jury To Decide If Spa Resort Can Be Liable Under ‘Hills and Ridges’ Doctrine In Slip-And-Fall Case,” By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Jan. 12, 2026).

Plaintiff Lost In More Ways Than One: Summary Judgment Granted Where Plaintiff Ventured Onto the Property By Mistake and Fell

In its unpublished decision in the case of DeWitt v. Bedford County Airport Auth., No. 1345 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Cmwlth. Nov. 10, 2025 Wolf, J., Jubelirer, J., and Wojcik, J.) (Op. by Wolf, J.) (unpublished), the Commonwealth Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant after finding that the record confirmed that the Plaintiff, at the time of his premises liability accident, was a trespasser and not a business invitee.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was traveling to a house to take a look at a trailer he was thinking of buying from the owner.  The Plaintiff followed GPS directions via the Google Maps app but ended up unkowningly going to the wrong address. The record confirmed that the Plaintiff was only on the property by mistake at the time he slipped and fell on an icy condition.

After discovery, the Defendant homeowners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff was a trespasser and that, therefore, the homeowners legally did not owe the Plaintiff any duty with respect to the icy condition.

The trial court entered summary judgment and the Commonwealth Court affirmed.

In its Opinion, the Commonwealth Court noted that, even if the Plaintiff had license to ask for direction while on the property, the Plaintiff was injured after he went to a second location deeper into the land owned by the landowner, further trespassing on the property.

The court stated a rule of law that a mistake by an entrant onto another’s land as to their status or permission enter the land does not relieve such entrant of a trespasser status.  See Op. at 5 citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 329 [other citations omitted].

The appellate court noted that the implied license doctrine does not extend to premises liability actions.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision, which the Commonwealth Court marked as an "Opinion Not Reported," may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Tamas Tuzes-Katai on www.unsplash.com.

Summary Judgment Granted Due to Lack of Actual or Constructive Notice of a Spill

In the case of Donahue v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 2:24-68 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2025 Dodge, M.J.), the court granted summary judgment in a slip and fall case.

The court ruled that the mere existence of an allegedly harmful condition or the mere happening of an accident is not evidence of negligence nor does it create a presumption of negligence.

In this matter, the court confirmed that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence of any actual notice on the part of the Defendant of the alleged spill.

The court additionally found that evidence of seven (7) incidents over the previous five (5) years in other areas of the store were insufficient to impute knowledge on the part of the Defendant.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff failed to present any evidence as to the amount of time that the alleged spill existed.

Without such evidence, the court noted that a claim of constructive notice cannot be supported. The court also noted that constructive notice cannot be shown by a negative inference.

Any speculation about how long the alleged condition may have existed before the start of the surveillance video available was insufficient.

The court also held that liability cannot be based on the Defendant’s failure to adhere to its own inspection policies or that its inspection policies were generally inadequate. Rather, there may be a duty of care before there can be a breach.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Eva Bronzini on www.pexels.com.

Premises Liability Plaintiff Tripped Up By Lack of Medical Expert

In the case of Montanez-Fontanez v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, No. 2023-C-0880 (C.P. Lehigh Co. Oct. 16, 2025 Reichley, J.), the court granted summary judgment due to a Plaintiff’s failure to produce expert evidence on the issue of causation with respect to the Plaintiff’s injuries that resulted from a fall down event.

In this matter, the Plaintiff was attending a physical therapy appointment to undergo therapy for her knee which had undergone a replacement surgery a month before.  As the Plaintiff was leaving the facility, she fell.

During the course of the matter, the defense filed a motion in limine and secured a Court Order holding that the Plaintiff's treating medical providers would be limited to the opinions noted in their office notes and were precluded from offering any opinions on causation.

The defense then followed up with a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff had not secured and produced an expert opinion on the causation of her alleged injuries.   

The Court noted that, while the Plaintiff’s injuries were immediate and of the type that could be expected to result from the nature of the alleged accident, the Plaintiff’s failure to produce expert causation evidence was still fatal. The Court ruled that, in this matter, unlike other cases that hold that causation may be sufficiently obvious such that no expert testimony is necessary, this Plaintiff was not in good health and had prior medical issues with regards to the same parts of her body before the subject incident.

As such, the Court noted that the facts in this matter that surrounded the Plaintiff’s injuries were not so apparent that a lay person on a jury could diagnose the cause of those injuries as being solely from the Plaintiff’s alleged incident.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of imaging: Photo by Online Marketing on www.unsplash.com.

Application of Sidewalk Exception to Governmental Immunity Statute Defeats Summary Judgment Motion

Jim Thorpe, PA

In the case of Hontz v. McFarland, No. 22-CV-2524 (C.P. Carbon Co. Dec. 5, 2025 Matika, J.), the trial court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Borough of Jim Thorpe after determining that the Borough was not immune from liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff tripped and fell over the base of a broken pole that was affixed to a sidewalk. Two days prior to the Plaintiff’s trip and fall, there was a motor vehicle accident during which a vehicle collided with the metal pole and broke it. This left a base of the sign protruding out of the sidewalk surface by 5-6 inches. 

In response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff asserted that it was permitted to proceed against the Borough under the sidewalk exception to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. That exception is found at 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8542(b)(7).

Here, the court found that the Borough was not permitted to raise the defense of governmental immunity where the dangerous condition at issue was “of” the sidewalk where the defect was caused by the Borough’s failure after due notice to properly maintain or to repair the defect in question.

As such, the court denied the Borough’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” www.Law.com (Jan. 21, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Mariya E. on www.pexels.com.

Court Grants Summary Judgment and Rejects Plaintiff's Reliance Upon Local Ordinance Requiring Ice and Snow Removal

In the case of Foxx v. City of New Castle, No. 11038 of 2023, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Hodge, J.), the court granted summary judgment in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a Plaintiff who left her residence and proceeded two (2) blocks to a Rite Aid pharmacy in a motorized wheelchair. As the Plaintiff approached the corner of one intersection, she attempted to proceed through a crosswalk but noted that snow was not cleared from the sidewalk. As a result, the Plaintiff was forced to cross the street in a different area and enter the Rite Aid parking lot utilizing a vehicle ramp. The Plaintiff was able to safely traverse that area and enter the store.

After leaving the store, the Plaintiff went to the end of the parking lot and stopped on the sidewalk as she noticed that it was full of snow and ice. Accordingly, she went back over to the same vehicle ramp that she had previously used to enter the parking lot. 

As she proceeded down to the bottom of the ramp, her wheels got caught in a hole which resulted in her falling from the motorized wheelchair and onto the street. The Plaintiff stated that she could not see the hole as it was slushy, dark brown water was coming down the street. 

Plaintiff later filed suit for her personal injuries.

The Defendant making the motion for summary judgment in this matter was the out-of-possession owner of the Rite Aid premises. The Defendant landowner asserted that its tenant was in possession of the premises and had the responsibility to repair and maintain the premises. The Defendant owner asserted that the tenant’s responsibility extended to the exterior facility such as the sidewalks and parking areas.

The Defendant asserted in its Motion for Summary Judgment that the Plaintiff had not presented any evidence that the Defendant, as a landlord out-of-possession, had breached any duty of care owed to the Plaintiff. 

The Defendant also asserted that the condition that allegedly caused the Plaintiff’s injuries was an open and obvious condition.

After reviewing the record before it, the court provided a detailed recitation of the current status of the premises liability law in this regard relative to a landlord out of possession. The court ruled that the record before it confirmed that the landlord out-of-possession had leased the premises to a tenant who exercises exclusive possession of the premises at the time. The lease agreement also required that the tenant was responsible for maintaining and repairing the premises including the sidewalk areas and the place where the Plaintiff was injured.

The trial court rejected the Plaintiff’s reliance upon a local ordinance regarding ice and snow removal in an effort to attach liability to the out-of-possession landlord.  The court found that the local ordinance did not appear to be applicable as the Plaintiff’s injuries were not sustained as an accumulation of snow and ice but due to the motorized wheelchair encountering a hole near the end of the vehicle ramp. The ordinance at issue appeared to only apply to ice and snow that rendered sidewalks dangerous to pedestrian travel.

It appears that, given the court’s decision on the landlord out of possession issue, it did not reach the open and obvious argument presented by the defense.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Gerald Connor of the Scranton office of the Margolis Edelstein law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Damian McCoig on www.unsplash.com.

Superior Court Rules That 3 Hour Delay Between End of Snowstorm and Beginning of Cleanup Was Not Unreasonable (Non-Precedential)

It appears that it is reasonable in Pennsylvania to have a cup of coffee or tea and enjoy the sight of a freshly fallen snow before having to go out and shovel.

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Melvin v. Sellani, No. 1234 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Dec. 31, 2025 Bowes, J., Stabile, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Mem. Op. by Stabile, J.), the court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant landowners and property manager in a slip and fall matter involving ice and/or snow.

The trial court decision entering summary judgment in favor of the Defendants had been entered by Judge Richard M. Hughes, III of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas.

Relative to the hills and ridges argument, the court noted that the Plaintiff failed to present evidence to establish when photographs of the scene of the incident were taken. There were conflicting statements as to whether the photos were taken the day of the incident or shortly thereafter. As such, the court noted that the photographs relied upon by the Plaintiff were not sufficient to create any material issues of fact as to whether the Defendants were under a duty to remedy any alleged hills and/or ridges of snow at the time of the incident.

The Superior Court otherwise observed that the Plaintiff failed to establish that an unreasonable of time had passed between the snowstorm and the alleged dangerous accumulation of snow or ice.

By the Plaintiff’s own testimony, it was snowing when she arrived at work at 6:30 in the morning on the day of the fall. The Plaintiff also confirmed that the snow had stopped by 3:00 p.m. when she left work. Three (3) to five (5) inches of snow had accumulated.

It was additionally indicated that the Defendant property manager indicated that he had begun to remove snow at 9:30 a.m. at the Plaintiff’s residence. The Plaintiff confirmed that the property manager was still working at snow removal when the Plaintiff arrived at home.

The court noted that, even if the snow had stopped immediately when the Plaintiff arrived at work earlier that morning, the Plaintiff provided no case law to support an argument “that a 3-hour delay between the cessation of the snow and the beginning of the clean up effort constitute[d] an unreasonable delay.” See Op. at 7.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of image:  Photo by Jill Wellington on www.pexels.com.

Court Strikes Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim But Allows Punitive Damages Claim to Proceed In Premises Liability Case

In the case of Abda v. Keystone Klub Keyser Oak, LLC, No. 2024-CV-7649 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 20, 2025 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas overruled a Preliminary Objection in the nature of a demurrer filed against the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages but sustained Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer filed against the Plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress in a personal injury case.

According to the Opinion, a customer at a skill-based games venue sued the Defendant entertainment lounge for negligence and sued its owner for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress after the owner allegedly attacked and injured the customer on the premises.

In support of his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the customer alleged that the owner later used his vehicle to cause damage to the grounds of the customer's residence and shouted profanities at the customer’s minor son in the process.

In response to the Complaint, the owner Defendant filed demurrers, including with respect to the Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff failed to allege specific facts to support a finding of willful or wanton misconduct.

The Defendant also filed a demurrer against the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In his Opinion, Judge Nealon noted that claims of willful or wanton misconduct may be averred generally under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b).

The court additionally held that a demand for punitive damages is not governed by the “material facts” pleading requirement found under Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a) because a demand for punitive damages does not constitute a “cause of action.” Instead, a demand for punitive damages is viewed merely as an element of damages that is incidental to an underlying cause of action.

Here, where the customer stated a prima facie claim for assault and battery against the owner and had generally alleged willful and wanton misconduct by the owner, the court found support for overruling the demurrer to the claim for punitive damages.

With respect to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court found that the Plaintiff’s Complaint did not describe conduct that was so outrageous in nature and extreme in degree so as to exceed all bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Accordingly, in the absence of such facts, the court sustained the Defendant’s demurrer to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Summary Judgment Denied in Supermarket Parking Lot Pothole Case

In the case of Schwab v. Giant Food Stores, No. 2024-CV-3936 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 2, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court denied summary judgment in a supermarket parking lot slip and fall involving a pothole.

In its responsive pleadings, the supermarket denied liability and also asserted that it did not own or control the parking lot at issue.

In response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff asserted that discovery was ongoing with respect to the ownership and maintenance of the parking lot at issue.

The court noted that the supermarket Defendant merely alleged in its pleadings and its Motion for Summary Judgment that it did not own or maintain the parking lot. However, the supermarket Defendant did not submit any evidence in support of that allegation.

As such, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment based on issues of fact and allowed the case to proceed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Summary Judgment Denied in Barstool Tip Over Case

In the case of Caskey v. Outback Steakhouse, No. 24-CV-00897 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2025 Young, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a customer’s premises liability suit.

The Plaintiff alleged that, while dining at the bar, the barstool he sat upon slid backwards as he leaned forward to eat, causing him to fall and sustain injuries.

The restaurants manager partially captioned the incident by using his phone to record a short video of the restaurant’s surveillance footage. The original surveillance video was not preserved. Also, the barstool involved in the incident was discarded before an expert site inspection could occur.

The Plaintiff provided evidence that there were multiple prior complaints of slippery and wobbly barstools reported to the Defendant’s managers. Moreover, the Plaintiff personally documented a subsequent incident where another barstool slid out from under his wife.

The Plaintiff continued that the Defendant’s failure to inspect the barstools and maintain appropriate facility inspection records reflected a breach of its duty of care owed to its customers as business invitees.

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that there was insufficient evidence of a dangerous condition or of actual or constructive notice of that condition.

The court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment by finding that the Plaintiff had raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the barstool was a dangerous condition and on the issue of whether the condition was open and obvious. The court more specifically found that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, including eyewitness and expert testimony, prior customer complaints, evidence of barstool deterioration, and inconsistences in the Defendant’s record-keeping, all gave rise to factual disputes that were appropriate for resolution by a jury.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Summary Judgment Denied in Case Involving Trip and Fall on Jogging Trail

In the case of Sember v. Lackawanna Heritage Valley Auth., No. 2024-CV-3255 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 22, 2025 Powell, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by the Defendants claiming immunity under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act relative to a trip and fall incident that occurred while the Plaintiff was jogging on the Lackawanna Heritage Trail.

The City of Scranton, which was a Co-Defendant, additionally asserted that it was entitled to immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

Both Defendants asserted that they were entitled to immunity under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act given that the trail was on recreational land that was open to the public without charge. 

The Defendants asserted that the Act provided that owners owe no duty to recreational uses to maintain safety or to warn of dangers, including with respect to paved and unpaved trails. The Defendants claimed that the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority and the City of Scranton both constituted owners under the Act. 

Here, however, the Plaintiff alleged a man-made hazard, that is, a raised concrete base, and also asserted that the Defendants knew of that condition but failed to repair it or warn the persons entering the land about the condition. 

Judge Mark Powell
Lackawanna County

As such, Judge Mark Powell of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas held that there were issues of fact and that it could not determine from the pleadings alone whether the RULWA applied at this early stage of the litigation.  The court more specifically found that factual development was required to assess whether the condition at issue was part of the trial’s recreational use or an artificial structure beyond the protection of the Act.

Relative to The City’s claim of governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, the City asserted that it was immune because the trail was maintained by the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority and was not under The City’s “care, custody, or control.” The City of Scranton also argued that the Plaintiff’s claim did not fall under any of the exceptions to the grant of immunity.

The court found that the record was insufficient to determine the extent of each Defendant's control or whether the defect constituted a dangerous condition of real property that might trigger an exception to immunity. In light of these questions of fact, the court denied the Motion for these additional reasons.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: Lackawanna Jurist (Oct. 31, 2025).

Summary Judgment Denied in Parking Lot Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Shea v. Kalahari Resorts & Conventions – Poconos, No. 3:23-CV-814 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2025, Mariani, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall matter involving ice and snow on sidewalks.

In this matter Judge Mariani initially overruled the Defendant's Motion in Limine to preclude the Plaintiff's engineering expert from testifying at trial.

The court also noted that it could not state, from the information in the record, that the winter conditions in the parking lot of the Defendant's premises amounted to an open and obvious condition.   

The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not the hills and ridges doctrine applied. In this regard, the court noted that the storm at issue had ended eleven (11) hours prior to the accident.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Denies Motion For Summary Judgment in Store Trip and Fall Case

In the case of Vargas v. Wal-Mart Supercenter, No. 3:22-CV-01642 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2025 Latella, Mag. J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability case. 

The Defendant was attempting to rely upon surveillance videotape evidence that showed the Plaintiff's actions at the time of the incident.  The Defendant also asserted that the video confirmed that the condition that the Plaintiff encountered was open and obvious.

Federal Mag. Judge Leo Latella

Federal Middle District Court Magistrate Judge Leo Latella ruled that the Defendant’s surveillance videotape evidence did not reach the level of an irrefutable physical fact that could support summary judgment in this slip and fall matter.  

With regards to the Defendant’s argument that the interpretation of the video established the assumption of the risk defense as a matter of law, the court noted that it was for the jury to decide whether the Plaintiff’s account of the events leading to the fall down event was believable.  

The court additionally noted that the Defendant should have taken customer distraction into account in maintaining safety on the premises. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.